Yet hacked oaths offer some power and leeway in times of social control. For example, before the Quiet Revolution, the French in Quebec created a series of words called « sacres » to challenge the Catholic Church. People began to use words associated with church rituals as exclamations and heckling. This lexical circumvention of religious sensibilities falls into the category of terms known as « pirated oaths. » They are a kind of euphemism: an indirect expression that is replaced to soften the harsher blow of the layman. Proponents of American exceptionalism may prefer an indigenous definition. The great American lexicographer Noah Webster (1828) called writing « the act or art of forming letters and signs on paper, wood, stone, or any other material to record the ideas that signs and words express, or to communicate them to others by visible signs. » Like the Dictionary Act, Webster lists some, but not all, possible types of writing (for example, both fail to write with lemon juice, a technology popular with children hoping to become spies). But Webster adds, « We hardly know what to admire more, the ingenuity or usefulness of the art of writing. » Including the latter comment in a definition would jeopardize bipartisan support, as Democrats tend to think writing is great, whereas the official Tea Party position on writing is that it is utilitarian, but only if it is made by registered tea revelers. Socialists, of course, see writing as collaborative (there`s a socialist in the house), but that would create a world where writing is equivalent to Wikipedia, making it far worse than universal health coverage. Until the late 1800s, the most common exppletives in English had some sort of biblical reference, but as Melissa Mohr explored in her story of the curse of « Holy Sh*t, » these blasphemous oaths began to decline in the 1700s, giving way to obscenities around 1900 based on bodily attributes and functions – body parts, sex and feces. Mohr links this shift to the decline of the Christian church as a central leader in people`s lives.
As Mohr writes, « Blasphemy has taken the place of vain oaths and has become our swearing. Webster`s Third (1961) retains much of Noah Webster`s original, without editorialism: writing is « the act or art of forming letters on stone, paper, wood, or any other suitable medium for recording the ideas that signs and words express, or for communicating ideas through visible signs. » This is unlikely to advance the digital revolution. So far, only the Oxford English Dictionary complements the conventional view of writing as a visible medium with the invisible writing performed when computers transfer keystrokes into memory: « The process of entering a piece of data into memory or recording on or onto a storage medium. » As if to make the point, the latest definitions of the OED are only available online. As a lifelong language student, I celebrate the variation of pirated oaths and like to compare them to other euphemisms and slang. They provide examples of how people create language in order to adapt and rebel at the same time while strengthening social cohesion. Originalists in Congress may prefer to use eighteenth-century dictionaries for revision. If so, they will discover that Nathan Bailey (1736) defines writing as « the art or act of designating our ideas by letters or signs and communicating them to other people visible to the eye. » And Samuel Johnson (1755) defines it as « a legal instrument; serenity; a book; a written work of any kind. Good definitions for the Enlightenment, but little help in the digital age. Meanwhile, hacked oaths based on modern sexual swear words can be all sorts of pleasure. In the popular NBC series « The Good Place, » a popular gag — with a possible nod to censors — is that the characters are incapable of uttering profanity. When they try, they end up saying « fork, » « shirt, » or « bench » instead of using your imagination.
Above: Nathan Bailey`s definition of Dictionarium Britannicum writing, Volume 2. London 1736. Below: Samuel Johnson`s dictionary definition of the English language. London 1755. Above: Definition of writing from Noah Webster`s American Dictionary of the English Language. New York 1828. Below: Webster`s Third New International Dictionary definition. Springfield, MA: 1961. The popularity of these shows has encouraged an increase in the use of these pirated oaths as people use their comic effect in their own lives. I am sorry, but I think you are missing the point. The legal definition of « writing » is based on Samuel Johnson`s first definition, a legal instrument. The fact is that a « font » can have power and effect, not only if it is an original holograph, but also a mechanical or other reproduction.
End of story. The problem with the definition of dictionary law writing is that it is specific without being inclusive. The law identifies a number of technologies that many people might not have thought were written when the law was written. Unfortunately, this attempt at an innovative definition now seems curious, but retro: some of the technologies mentioned by the law are outdated – even typewriters in America are more museum pieces or attic garbage than typewriters – and it is silent on new technologies that should be covered by a legal definition. There is a federal law that defines writing. Because the meaning of words in our laws is not always clear, the very first of our federal statutes, the Dictionary Act – the name of Title 1, Chapter 1, Section 1 of the United States Code – defines what some of the words in the rest of the Code mean, both to guide legal interpretation and to eliminate the need to explain those words every time. when they appear. Writing is one of the words it defines, but the definition needs an update. While some hacked oaths persisted — one of them even became part of a popular meme wearing a dog hat — many fell out of common parlance. Others have moved from a secular perception to simple soft expressions, such as « Sam Hill » for « hell. » The first use of the term « pirated oaths » according to the Oxford English Dictionary dates back to 1654, when elders in the Banffshire area of Scotland were criticised for using them.
And then there`s the definition of writing. The last provision of the Act defines writing as « printing and typing, as well as reproductions of visual symbols by photograph, multigraph, mimeography, multiplication, multiplicity or otherwise. » For example, there is no mention of braille or photocopies or computers and mobile phones, which now appear to be the primary means of transmitting text, although they, Facebook and Twitter and any writing technologies that have not yet appeared are presumably covered by the general wording of the act « or otherwise ». Slang and pirated oaths are forms of synonyms – words used to replace others while conveying the same basic meaning. But pirated oaths have historically played a very specific role: they provide a weakened but socially acceptable form of an actual religious oath, oath, or curse. Of course, no legal definition that fits into a single clause can hope to define writing, but at some point, Congress must bring the dictionary law into the twenty-first century by omitting the old writing technologies and undertaking the latest technologies. (Since the law of the dictionary defines the present as the future, the new definition of writing does not need to anticipate all types of writing that have not yet been invented.) But given the state of the economy and the world, and the growing political resentment in the country, redefining the letter is not a high legislative priority.